FBU involvement in Africa

[Ironside]

Yes, the story hangs together well.

[Olefin]

I disagree with Web as to South Africa - depending on what happened there they may have 4-5 nukes still in their arsenal. And while thats not a lot its enough to really not make the Soviets day if they, oh for instance, give them to the Israelis to get some pay back one day or put them on a ship to try to pay the Sov's back themselves. (especially considering there isnt much left of the Sov Navy to stop them)

Course that depends on if you see South Africa as a pariah nation or if they have embraced change and are back in the company of nations again.

Also keep in mind that Senegal and Dijbouti hold together as nations according to the RDF - now if Africa is a nuked EMP blasted continent I doubt very much there would have been much left of either nation to join the FBU.

(I do heartily agree that much of Nigeria would be glowing in the dark because of the importance of its oil industry to the US and Western Europe)

However I can definitely agree that much of the continent would be a mess even if not one nuke landed south of Libya. In the module I am working on the 1st and 2nd Congolese Wars still occur - and its those wars that help turn much of Africa between the Sahara and South Africa into a landscape of failed nations - except for the ones the French and Belgians supported like Rwanda and Burundi (i.e. the Tutsi armies that came out of the Rwanda massacre)

[Legbreaker]

I'm with Web on this one.

[Olefin]

well I am with Frank Frey on this one and its his notes that are being used for Kenya. And I doubt that Kenya is the only nation in Africa that is in good shape.

[Webstral]

It's not an either-or. I'm describing an overall state of affairs. I specifically made allowances for islands of relative peace and prosperity so that Kenya and some other locations like it could be incorporated into an overall picture without the need for taking sides over something so ill-defined as Africa in 2000.

Surviving intact is very much a relative term in 2000. Even places that haven’t been directly affected by the nuclear exchange are going to be affected by the collapse of the global trade network and the disruption of the global petrochemical network. Even places that produce enough oil for fuel for their own needs and some export still can’t necessarily produce a wide variety of important petrochemical products, such as pesticides and fertilizers. Other products not produced locally will be unavailable. The local economy will be affected by the steep decline in trade—especially in places like Mombasa that were relatively cosmopolitan before the war. The ever-present urge for self-determination among the tribes not in power will grow as communications and interdependence decline.

Again, this isn’t worth taking sides over. There’s no Webstral’s-way-or-the-highway or Frank Frey’s-way-or-the-highway.

[Olefin]

No and I dont think that either Webstral - dont take my disagreeing with you as saying its my way or the highway - I am saying that I dont agree with Africa being massively damaged by EMP - but I do agree with you that economic damage from world trade being shut down is making Africa rapidly fall apart in many places

[Raellus]

To me, this EMP argument is moot. Regardless of whether Africa is or is not affected by EMP, it is still going to be a hot mess once WWIII kicks off. Somalia is the modern epitome of a failed state. There are fairly routine rolling blackouts in Nairobi and Mombassa now, in 2012. Nigeria teeters on the brink of tearing itself apart (again- remember Biafra?) in a fresh wave of sectarian violence. There was a coup in Mali just last week. If all of this has happened during the "Pax Americana", imagine how much crazier it would have been as the Cold War superpowers spiralled towards open warfare.

In the topsy-turvy lead in to a full-blown (read "nuclear") WWIII, Africa is only going to get more chaotic. Without the money and technical expertise of the U.S., Soviet Union, and/or China (depending, to a degree, on what timeline you use), many African nations are going to struggle to keep it together. Cold War patronage did contribute to some of the violence and instability in Africa during the '50s-'80s, but it also, in some cases, kept the violence fairly localized and, in others, prevented wider African wars from breaking out. Without that external influence, the situation in Africa would likely have gotten a whole lot worse. We all saw what happened in Rwanda when the world turned a blind eye.

Yes, some parts of Africa might be able to maintain relative peace and order, but these regions are going to be small, few, and far between. They are going to struggle to beat back the tide of chaos that surrounds them and they are going to have to do so more or less alone. There's not going to be some powerful patron nation there to step in and help with lawyers, guns, and money. Hell, there's not going to be a U.N. even.

Kenya might be one of those countries that doesn't completely collapse, but it will be faced with some staggering challenges, with or without nuclear strikes/EMP.